Sites like Roobet: what 41 alternatives actually publish

The clause is short and it is specific. Headed Restricted Territories, Roobet's clause 3.5 names Aruba, Australia, Bonaire, Cuba, Curacao, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Malta, Myanmar, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, North Korea, Saba, Saint Maarten, Saint Martin, South Sudan, Statia, Syria, the United States, the United Kingdoms, Yemen and Zimbabwe. The spelling United Kingdoms is Roobet's, printed that way in the terms, and it is reproduced here rather than corrected because the point of quoting a contract is to quote it.

That is a statement about the agreement a player enters into with Roobet, and it is the only sense in which this page discusses restrictions at all. What it means for any individual is a question for that individual, not for a table. The rest of this page compares the forty-one sites like Roobet on coins, studios, verification clauses, withdrawal ceilings and licence records, and leaves their territory lists alone.

The corporate structure behind the brand is worth recording alongside the clause, because the two sit in the same footer line. The licence holder is Raw Entertainment B.V., registration 157205, at Korporaalweg 10, Curaçao. The money moves through a second company: Raw Entertainment Ltd, registration HE421735, at Voukourestiou 25, Neptune House, Limassol, Cyprus, described in Roobet's own footer as the paying and operational agent acting on behalf of Raw Entertainment B.V. The licence sits in one jurisdiction and the paying agent in another, and Cyprus also appears on the clause 3.5 list.

Forty-one sites like Roobet are compared, chosen because they run the same shape of business as Roobet: a crypto-funded casino, usually with a sportsbook attached, licensed in Curaçao or Anjouan, taking deposits in coins rather than cards. Each one has a record built from its own terms of service, its own cashier or lobby, and where one exists the public licence register entry.

The records are deliberately uneven, because the operators are. Some publish a numbered clause with a figure in it; some publish a paragraph of discretion; some publish nothing on the subject at all. The table below is the coverage map, and it is the honest measure of how much any of these brands will tell you before you sign up.

One rule governs every cell on this page: a blank means the document does not say, or we have not read it. It is never shorthand for none and never for zero. A casino that has not published a withdrawal ceiling has not thereby promised you an unlimited one, and a casino with no coin list on file may well take thirty coins — we simply have not read the cashier.

This is the orientation table. Ten of the forty-one have a licence, a cashier list and a studio list all on file, and those ten are the only rows where a like-for-like comparison with Roobet is possible at all. Brands with thinner records appear later on the page rather than being padded out here.

Read the studio column as catalogue breadth rather than quality. A lobby with a hundred and twenty studios in it is not automatically better than one with thirty; it is broader, which matters if you are looking for a specific game and matters much less if you are not.

Roobet publishes a 2024-series Curaçao number, OGL/2024/687/0427, issued under the regime that replaced the old master-and-sub-licence arrangement. We have not resolved that number in the Curaçao Gaming Authority's certificate register. The status on this page is therefore unverified, which means unchecked. It does not mean invalid, and nobody should read it that way.

Against that, thirty-three of the forty-one sites like Roobet have a register link on file. Seventeen carry a certificate URL that points directly into cert.cga.cw, the Curaçao Gaming Authority's own certificate viewer, each one recorded with status Active: Wild.io, Metaspins, Bitsler, Bitcasino.io, Shuffle, Thunderpick, Cloudbet, Sportsbet.io, Stake, Playbet.io, BetFury, CryptoLeo, Mirax, KatsuBet, TrustDice, Livecasino.io and BitStarz. Fifteen more name the Anjouan Gaming Board and point at its public licence register: Flush, Rainbet, DuckDice, JacksClub, Rakebit, Bspin, Fairspin, Empire.io, Windice, FortuneJack, CoinPoker, Wild Fortune, Weiss, Betcoin.ag and Chipstars. BC.Game is the only one on file with a per-domain validation URL, which resolves its licence against the domain bc.game rather than sending you to a list.

Six record no register link at all and only their own pages: Wolf.bet, Rocketpot, LTC Casino, Primedice, Sportbet.one and Bitdreams. Two — Nitrobetting and BetPlays — do not have a licence authority or number on record in anything read. That is not an accusation; it is a description of what is missing, and it is the sort of gap worth noticing before money moves.

One older Curaçao form still appears. LTC Casino and Primedice both carry 8048/JAZ, and Bitdreams carries 8048/JAZ2019-015 under Antillephone N.V. Sportbet.one is the outlier in the set, naming M.I.S.A. and the number G20190045 rather than either of the two jurisdictions that account for nearly everything else here.

Checking the numbers rather than the brand names surfaces something the marketing does not. Four licence numbers in this set are each shared by two brands. That is a normal consequence of one operator running several front ends, and it is not in itself a criticism — but it does mean that picking two of these brands as a hedge against each other may not be the hedge it looks like.

Roobet's cashier prints eleven coins: BTC, USDT, USDC, ETH, SOL, SUI, BNB, XRP, TRX, LTC and DOGE. It is a mainstream list — the majors, two dollar stablecoins, and one meme coin — and it is the single fact on this page that most people can check for themselves in ten seconds by opening the deposit screen.

Twenty-two of the forty-one alternatives have a cashier list on file, and six of those are longer than Roobet's. Cloudbet's is the outlier by a wide margin at forty entries, and it is the only cashier in the set that reaches into gold-backed and staked assets alongside the majors. Sportbet.one lists nineteen. Rakebit lists fifteen, including both of the privacy coins that appear anywhere in this data. At the other end, KatsuBet's record has a single coin on it, and Playbet.io publishes three.

Two coins are worth singling out because they say something structural. USDT appears in nineteen of the twenty-two cashiers on file, which makes the dollar stablecoin more universal in this market than Bitcoin's own dominance would suggest. XMR appears in exactly two — DuckDice and Rakebit — which is the clearest signal in the data of how few of these operators want to handle an asset they cannot trace.

Roobet's game policy names six house games: Crash, Roulette, Towers, Mines, Blackjack and Dice. Those are Roobet's own, built in-house rather than licensed, and they are the reason the brand is recognisable — the Crash curve in particular is what most people picture when they picture Roobet. Everything else in the lobby comes from the sixty-four studios Roobet names.

Eighteen of the forty-one sites like Roobet are recorded as running house originals of their own: BC.Game, Wolf.bet, Rocketpot, Wild.io, Metaspins, Bitsler, Flush, Rainbet, DuckDice, JacksClub, Bitcasino.io, Rakebit, Shuffle, Thunderpick, Fairspin, BetFury, TrustDice and BitStarz. Nineteen are recorded as running provably fair verification on their games, which is the mechanism that lets a player check a result after the fact rather than take it on trust.

There is one structural difference between Roobet and much of the field that the studio lists make visible. Spribe — the studio behind the licensed crash format that dominates this market — appears on thirteen of the twenty-two alternative lists we have read, including Wolf.bet, Wild.io, Bitsler, DuckDice, Bitcasino.io, Sportsbet.io, Fairspin, Empire.io, Windice, BetFury, CryptoLeo, Livecasino.io and BetPlays. It does not appear on Roobet's. Roobet builds its crash game rather than licensing one, and the brands that took the licensed route are offering something adjacent rather than identical.

This is the field where the difference between publishing a fact and publishing a paragraph matters most. Roobet's clauses 4.9 and 10.5 say documents may be requested at any time at Roobet's discretion, and that withdrawals are refused until identity is fully verified. No figure is attached to either clause. There is no threshold to quote because Roobet does not state one.

Thirty-six of the forty-one alternatives have a verification clause on file. Five of those state a number; the great majority of the remaining thirty-one read much as Roobet's does — discretion, exercised at any time, with withdrawals held until the check clears. Five out of forty-one is the single clearest illustration on this page of how little of this market commits to anything in writing before you deposit.

The five that do commit are worth reading closely, because none of them is a promise of anonymity below the line. Bitcasino.io, Sportsbet.io and Livecasino.io all name €2,500 at clause 6.6 and all three add that smaller withdrawals may be checked too. Rocketpot names $2,500 at clause 11.4, then says elsewhere in the same document that additional checks may apply over $2,000 and that smaller withdrawals may be verified as the licence requires. Empire.io names 2,000 USDT at clause 5.4 with the same caveat attached. In every case the number is a trigger for extra scrutiny, not a ceiling below which nothing happens.

Four casino sites like Roobet market themselves in the opposite direction, and in two of the four the operator's own documents contradict the marketing. LTC Casino's homepage states that no identity verification or documents are required and that players can withdraw without verifying; its terms of service say nothing about verification either way, so nothing in its own material cuts against that. Sportbet.one states that it offers anonymous betting with no KYC requirements. CoinPoker markets itself as no-KYC, but its responsible gambling policy reserves the right to request verification or to freeze an account. Rakebit's homepage FAQ says standard withdrawals are processed without documents, while its terms of use require an identity document, a selfie and proof of address on a first withdrawal — a flat conflict inside one operator's own material, and the sort of thing worth finding before rather than after a win.

At the strictest end, Chipstars states that verification must be carried out at the latest when cumulative deposits reach €2,000 and that no withdrawal is permitted before identification is verified, regardless of amount. Wild Fortune requires Bitcoin players to submit valid identification before playing at all, with deposits and bets blocked until that is done. Mirax and BitStarz both describe verification as an obligatory procedure rather than a contingent one.

Roobet publishes no maximum withdrawal in anything read. Nor do thirty-three of the forty-one alternatives. Eight do, and the spread between them is wider than anything else in this data: Rocketpot caps withdrawals at 5,000 USD a month and BetPlays at 5,000 EUR a week, while Bitcasino.io's clause 6.10 sets the ceiling at 1,000,000 USDT a week. These are operators of broadly the same kind, licensed in broadly the same places, three orders of magnitude apart on the one number that decides what a big win is worth to you.

A published ceiling is not automatically bad news, and the eight sites like Roobet with one are not thereby worse than the thirty-three without. A limit written into clause 11.5 is a limit you can read before you deposit; an unpublished one is a conversation you have with support after you win. Rocketpot's 5,000 USD a month is the tightest number here, and it is still a number.

Three clauses in Roobet's terms deal with charges and conditions on withdrawal, and they are specific in a way the verification clauses are not. Clause 9.7 applies a 1% fee to all successful fiat deposits. Clause 10.8 applies a 2% fee from the tenth fiat withdrawal in any rolling thirty-day period, and to every withdrawal after that within the window. Clause 10.1 requires a deposit to be wagered before it can be withdrawn.

None of those is a cap and none should be read as one — they are kept separate from the withdrawal-ceiling table above for exactly that reason. The tenth-withdrawal rule is the one worth noting, because it is triggered by the number of fiat withdrawals rather than their size, so it falls on frequent small withdrawals — a kind of clause worth looking for in the terms of any site like Roobet as well.

No ranking on this page is a ranking of quality, because nothing was played and no payout was timed. What can be ranked is documentation: how much a brand commits to in writing before you give it money. That is a real axis, it is the one this site can actually measure, and it happens to be the axis that matters most to somebody choosing an operator they cannot easily complain about later.

Most of this comparison has gaps in it, and naming them is more useful than quietly dropping the brands concerned. BC.Game has a validated Anjouan licence tied to its domain and nothing else on file — no cashier list, no studio list, no verification clause read. Stake and Primedice each have a licence and a verification clause but neither a coin nor a studio list. Twelve brands have a studio list but no cashier list on record: Bitsler, Bitcasino.io, Thunderpick, Sportsbet.io, Fairspin, Empire.io, BetFury, FortuneJack, Livecasino.io, BetPlays, BitStarz and Betcoin.ag.

Five have no verification clause on file at all: BC.Game, Flush, BetFury, TrustDice and Betcoin.ag. For those five, nothing on this page should be read as evidence that verification is or is not required. It means the document has not been read, and that is a different and much weaker statement.

One small pattern in the withdrawal clauses is worth recording because it cuts across the whole set. Four of the eight published ceilings are written in euros — Bitdreams, Wild Fortune, Mirax and BetPlays — and the other four in dollars or USDT. A ceiling in euros is a ceiling you convert before it means anything, and the conversion is not the operator's problem. Bitdreams is also the only brand on this page still carrying an Antillephone N.V. number of the older form, 8048/JAZ2019-015.

Every record here was read between 26 and 28 August 2026, and the dates are recorded per brand rather than per page, because terms change and licence registers are updated. A clause number quoted here may be renumbered next month. If a figure on this page matters to a decision you are making, the right move is to open the operator's own terms and find the clause, which is why clause numbers are printed alongside the figures throughout.

This page does not rate payout speed, and no brand on it is described as fast or slow, because that is not something a document can establish. It does not claim that any operator was tested, because none was. It does not tell anyone whether they may lawfully open an account anywhere, and it does not discuss the gambling law of any country. Roobet's restricted-territory clause is reported because it is a term of Roobet's own contract: clause 3.5 names twenty-five places, the United States among them. Nothing more is drawn from it, and it is not extended to the forty-one sites like Roobet compared here.

Finally, the site carries one commercial placement, shown separately from these tables and labelled as such. It is not ranked into anything above, and no row in any table on this page was ordered to accommodate it.